Saturday, August 31, 2013

The neocon war criminals
who took the U.S. into an illegal and disastrous war in Iraq are back -
and demanding major attacks that will lead inevitably to a Syria War.We say No!
Attacking Syria won't reduce the violence - it will only escalate it with devastating consequences for Syrians and Americans, as we learned so painfully in Iraq.The U.S. invasion of Iraq killed 100,000 to 600,000 Iraqi civilians. For Americans, the invasion killed 4,486 U.S. troops and wounded 32,223. Of the 2.3 million U.S. troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, roughly 20% suffer from PTSD or Traumatic Brain Injury, and hundreds commit suicide each year. For returning troops and their loved ones, the war is never over.
President Obama may prefer sending a few missiles from a distance, but Republicans like John McCain and Lindsey Graham are demanding much larger attacks - which would easily lead to all-out war with Syria.
Moreover Syria, unlike Iraq, has the support of major military powers like Russia and Iran, which could lead to a much larger war across the entire Middle East.
Economically, the U.S. absolutely cannot afford war with Syria. The Iraq War cost the U.S. economy $3 trillion and helped cause the Great Recession of 2008, which has still not ended.
Since Republicans refuse to raise taxes, the inevitable costs of a Syrian War will come from food stamps, education, health care, environmental protection, and Social Security. The American people adamantly oppose cuts to these essential programs.
These are among the reasons Americans oppose a Syria War.
The U.S. cannot solve Syria's civil war by turning that war into a U.S. war - instead we must increase our efforts to find a diplomatic solution,
as was done successfully in Northern Ireland. And when we have solid
evidence of the people who ordered any chemical weapons attacks, we
should bring them before the International Criminal Court for war crimes.

Petition

Most Americans oppose a Syria War - and I am one of them.
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were disastrous, both in human and economic terms. War in Syria could be even worse.
We have no idea who we're fighting for - Al Qaeda?
Moreover we already have a federal budget crisis that is causing devastating cuts to food stamps, Head Start, and other crucial programs. We have absolutely no money for a new Syria War.
A U.S. war is not the solution to Syria's civil war - we need increased diplomacy
instead, like the successful effort to end the civil war in Northern
Ireland. And whoever ordered chemical attacks should be prosecuted by
the International Criminal Court.As your constituent, I demand that you vote against a Syria War, and block any funds for any military actions that could start such a war.

The official lies
about 911 cannot be allowed to stand. Exposing the truth is necessary
to stop any further staged attacks that could be used as a pretext to
clamp down on civil liberties or as a justification for new Wars versus
countries such as Iran. We live in dangerous times and we need experts
like these to help fight against the lies.

Go to the AE911truth website and sign their petition. Become a
sustaining member and donate money to further their operations. Give 10
dollars a month or more if you can afford it. Don't let the criminals
win.

The analysis provided by these Architects and Engineers MUST be used by
honourable Law Enforcement, Judicial and Military persons in actions
against the real suspects. Don't let the perpetrators of 911 go
unpunished. Spread the word about September 11 being an inside job !

As cliche as this sounds, we ARE all in this together. The only way to
stop the threat of terrorism and to end the wars is to stand up and be
heard. Nothing good will happen if we all remain silent.

AE911Truth Petition Signers' Expertise Unveiled

More than 2,000 architects and engineers have now signed the AE911 Truth petition to Congress calling for a new, independent investigation into the World AE911Truth
founder and international speaker Richard Gage, AIA, was the first
signer of the AE911 Truth petition to Congress, which now has the
signatures of over 2,000 architects and engineers and 17,000 othersTrade Center attacks on 9/11.

By recently adding their names and reputations to the petition, the
professionals who pushed us past the 2,000 mark in August bolster the
foundation of credibility and scientific knowledge on which the
AE911Truth effort is built. You can now download the full petition signer list.

Reaching this milestone is doubly exciting because it comes just in time for the kickoff of the worldwide ReThink911 ad campaign – itself a watershed event – on the 12th anniversary of 9/11.

“I am thrilled that so many architects and engineers have reached the
same conclusions we have, and are willing to stand up and demand a real
investigation,” said Richard Gage, AIA, founder of AE911Truth. “My
thanks go out to all of our supporters who helped to educate the public
and encourage their colleagues and friends in the technical professions
to sign the petition.”

Gage was the first signer of the petition back in April 2006 – when,
startled by the WTC evidence he heard from David Ray Griffin on the
radio, he founded the organization and has since sought to find other
A/E’s through radio interviews and live presentations in 28 countries –
numbering almost 600 altogether. The number of signers has grown
steadily over the years, and is likely to continue growing as more and
more professionals encounter the compelling evidence that AE911Truth
continues to work so hard to disseminate.
Architects and engineers are the core of AE911Truth’s program because
they are the type of professionals most likely to have a deep
understanding of the scientific principles underpinning the evidence we
present. To ensure the integrity of our list, we individually verify
each A/E petition signer’s credentials by contacting them directly,
obtaining copies of their degree/license, and checking for authenticity.

While the sheer number of signers in these key professions lends
weight to our call for a new investigation, our petition list reflects
quality as well as quantity. It contains signers from an impressive
array of professions relevant to the issues surrounding the three World
Trade Center high rises destroyed on 9/11. For instance, more than 160 signers are civil engineers, nearly 160 are electrical engineers, and more than 240 of these are licensed professional engineers (P.E.).

“Credibility is crucial,” said Gage. “Harping defenders of the
official story try to dismiss our evidence by charging us with ignorance
or lack of understanding. Yet we are supported by Daniel Barnum, FAIA, explains why he challenges the official story of 9/11 in the film 9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Outthousands
of architects and engineers boasting solid credentials, years of
experience, and degrees from first-rate institutions. As well, the
broader public pays closer attention when our compelling claims come
from such acknowledged experts in their fields.”

A Closer Look at the Petition Signers

The architects and engineers who have signed our petition reflect a
wide range of disciplines and specialties. A great many hold degrees
from nationally and internationally respected colleges and universities,
and many have received high honors from their professional or academic
communities. Many are principals of firms, and several dozen have
designed high-rise structures similar to the World Trade Center
buildings. For most, the length of professional experience can be
measured not in years but in decades, and collectively, they comprise
more than 30,000 years of qualified technical experience. In short, they
are precisely the kinds of people that our society turns to when trying
to understand complex events like the catastrophic destruction of the
World Trade Center – that is, experts.

More than 75 AE911Truth petition signers hold Ph.D. degrees. More than 190 hold M.S. degrees. Nearly 100
of our architects are members of the American Institute of Architects
(AIA). Seven of our signers are Fellows of the AIA (FAIA), one
of the highest honors that the organization can bestow upon a member.
High-rise architect Daniel Barnum, FAIA, is one of the signers who holds
this prestigious distinction, which reflects great personal and
professional achievement. More than 75 AE911Truth petition signers hold Ph.D. degrees.
With more than 40 years of experience, Barnum has worked on major
high-rise office buildings in Houston, Texas, and was project manager
for a 22-story high-rise office building in Akron, Ohio. In recalling
the collapse of World Trade Center 7 in the film 9/11: Explosive Evidence—Experts Speak Out,
Barnum said, “…a few fires in that building and, I mean, they weren’t
even raging, and how could that cause a building to collapse? Couldn’t
happen.”

More than 60 petition signers received degrees from Ivy League institutions,
including 17 from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 16 from
Harvard University, and 5 from Yale University. These are people who, as
high school students, typically graduated with the top grade point
averages in their class, in order to be selected for admission.

Architect Jody Gibbs, speaking here in 9/11: Explosive Evidence—Experts Speak Out, is a graduate of both Harvard and Yale, and was on the faculty of MIT.Architect Jody Gibbs, for example, is a graduate of both Harvard and Yale.
He has commented on the six-ton structural steel section from World
Trade Center 1 that somehow was thrown into the American Express
building like a dart – indicating the use of explosives. “Gravity works
vertically, not laterally,” he said succinctly but with the kind of
appeal to basic physics that tends to demolish the official 9/11 story.
In a letter urging his fellow architects to attend a showing of a popular 9/11 Truth film, Gibbs exposed the failings of the 9/11 Commission Report.
“Unfortunately the 9/11 Commission was not a court procedure or a
scientific investigation,” Gibbs wrote. “Instead, it was a public
hearing convened by politicians. There was no forensic investigation for
explosives. World Trade Center Building 7 was not even investigated. No explanation was given for the pulverization of the concrete in midair, nor the free-fall time
of the collapses . . . . There were members of the FBI, the NSA,
military intelligence, and numerous scientific and engineering experts
who wished to present information to the Commission contradicting the
official story, but were denied the opportunity.” When Gibbs wrote this
letter in 2009, he referenced “nearly one thousand” architects and
engineers calling for a new investigation. Today there are twice that
many.

Another Ivy League graduate, David Johnson, adds an
uncommon level of first-hand knowledge to his stellar academic
credentials. A Fellow of the American Institute of Certified Planners,
Johnson holds both undergraduate and graduate degrees from Yale (where
he studied under a professor who had worked on the Empire State
Building) and a Ph.D. in Regional Planning from Cornell University, and
is Professor Emeritus of Urban and Regional Planning at The University
of Tennessee. “As a professional city planner in New York,”
Johnson wrote in his petition statement, “I knew those buildings [the
Twin Towers] and their design. I attended and participated in the
hearings at the New York City Hall when the buildings were first
proposed. . . . So I was well aware of the strength of the core with its
steel columns, surrounding the elevators, and stairwells. . . . When I
saw the rapid collapse of the towers, I knew that they could not come down the way they did without explosives and the severing of core columns at the base.”

9/11 researcher and AE911 Truth petition signer Dr. David Griscom is a graduate of both Carnegie Mellon and Brown UniversitiesIn
addition to the Ivy Leagues, many other academic institutions with
excellent reputations are represented among the signers of our petition,
including Carnegie Mellon University, which specializes in engineering
and is consistently ranked highly in engineering disciplines. One of the 15 signers with a degree from Carnegie Mellon
is David Griscom, a physicist who received his B.S. from Carnegie
Mellon and his Ph.D. from Brown University. Dr. Griscom worked at the
Naval Research Laboratory, and was chosen by NASA from among hundreds of
scientists as a team leader in analyzing the moon rocks from the Apollo
missions. He has published 193 studies in peer-reviewed scientific journals and was a reviewer of the study on thermitic material found in the dust of the World Trade Center.

Dr. Griscom emphasizes the importance of credentialed professionals
lending their expertise to the 9/11 Truth movement, saying, “I implore
my fellow physicists and engineers who may have the time, expertise, and
(ideally) supercomputer access to get to work on the physics of the
World Trade Center collapses and publish their findings in refereed
journals [such as] the Journal of Applied Physics.”

Our signers are geographically diverse as well – living, working, and
receiving their education all over the country and around the world.
The universities mentioned above, for example, suggest plenty of
representation in the eastern U.S., but we also have verified signers
educated at such schools as Northwestern University (near Chicago), Iowa
State University, and Texas Tech University. On the west coast, the University
of California at Berkeley has the greatest number of graduates on the
petition (41), scoring the highest in the nation in the “9/11 league” of
universities.

Richard Gage, AIA, received his degree in Architecture in 1986 from
the University of Southern California. Nearby Stanford University and
the California Institute of Technology are also well represented. We
have several international signers as well, hailing from such countries
as Denmark, Australia, Germany, France, and the U.K.

This is merely an overview of the people whose knowledge, experience,
and scientific insights stand behind AE911Truth as we push on to create
a broader awareness of WTC issues, bring about a new investigation, and
eventually bring the real perpetrators to justice. Many of the petition
signers have come forward to give video-recorded interviews stating their views on 9/11. They are featured in the film 9/11: Explosive Evidence—Experts Speak Out. This film has been playing for months on Colorado Public Television – becoming the “most watched / most shared” video on PBS.org and reaching millions of viewers. You can watch the film with pledge breaks
featuring Richard Gage, AIA. A bonus DVD included with the full-length
version of Experts Speak Out contains the video “Meet the Experts,”
which is a two-hour compilation in which experts from the documentary
introduce their significant credentials, personal experiences, and
professional opinions about 9/11. The complete two-disk DVD set is available in our online store.

********************************
The data used was the Petition List as of June 3, 2013. The summary
will be updated every month or so. For the latest counts and more
details, visit www.ANETA.org/AE911Truth/petition/summary.

The USA and the UK governments have been increasing their rhetoric regarding military intervention in Syria, following alleged claims that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons against its own people. Though the international community has the responsibility to get to the bottom of what happened, military intervention is not the right option. Following the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, UK simply cannot afford another military campaign in the Middle East, especially given the truly complicated situation in Syria.

Over the last decades, lives have been ruined and countries destroyed because of Western intervention in the Middle East. Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan still suffer. It would be naive to assume that the outcome in Syria would be any better.

We urge the UK government to not choose military intervention as the main course of action. Diplomacy must still remain the main path towards the end of the conflict in Syria. We must learn from history and our past mistakes.

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

To be delivered to:
The United States House of Representatives, The United States Senate, and President Barack Obama

War is not the answer. Not in Iran. Not in Syria.

Intervention in Syria only makes matters worse. All sides are committing war crimes, and providing arms only results in more killing.

The US and all foreign governments should stay out of Syria and let the Syrian people resolve their own political matters in their own way. Our government must keep its arms, funding and troops out of Syria.

Tuesday, August 20, 2013

The next level of 9/11 TRUTH street activism. For a second time, a local news channel has been compelled to explain the collapse of WTC7 to the public, as a direct result of the graffiti.

The War on Terror and the loss of civil liberties is the direct result of the false flag 911 attacks. Only the truth about what happened can reverse this situation. For more information on the destruction of World Trade Centre building 7 see the following clip:

Architects and Engineers - Solving the Mystery of WTC 7 - AE911Truth

Please note: The main obstacle in overcoming the continuing cover-up is the lack of public awareness. Regardless of the disinformation, key facts like the freefall collapse of WTC7, the molten steel, and the nanothermite, prove that the attacks of 911 involved inside help.

Simple slogans like 'Google WTC7' or even 'AE911truth.org' will help alert the public to the deception we have all endured. The endless War on Terror will not stop until we can break out of this cover-up society with its captured press and corrupted Government.

[And it is thanks to this situation we have relative non-action regarding the Fukushima disaster. Debunkers and Truthers are all in the same boat at the end of the day.]

RELATED INFORMATION: On how those in high office are controlled (other than lobbyist bribery) via blackmail - so that they do the bidding of the establishment rather than helping the people:

Dr. Harrit has a Chemistry PhD from the University of Copenhagen, where he became a faculty member and currently conducts research at the prestigious Nano-Science Center. The second author is Dr. Jeffrey Farrer,
who has a PhD in Materials Science and Engineering. Farrer is the TEM
lab director at Brigham Young University, where he has access to world-class equipment. The third author is Dr. Steven Jones,
a Professor Emeritus at BYU with a PhD in Physics. Dr. Jones has
published over fifty reviewed papers in some of the best journals, but
he notes
that the review process was unusually tough for this paper, "with pages
of comments by referees." And according to Jones this "led to months of
further experiments." The thorough peer-review is not surprising since
one of the referees has publicly identified himself as Dr. David L. Griscom, a chemical physics expert and a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Griscom´s incredible 40 year career includes Lunar dust research for NASA, managing research for DARPA, and more than 30 years of working for the Naval Research Laboratory.
Griscom has also been the principal author of well over 100 reviewed
papers, and has himself reviewed at least 600 papers. Harrit et al.
thank Griscom in the acknowledgement section of the paper because he had
revealed his identity to them. Some people have tried to discredit
Griscom´s review because of that, but there is nothing unusual about
thanking an identified reviewer - some journals also allow the authors
to suggest
one reviewer. The same people have tried to discredit Griscom´s review
because he does not believe the official 9/11 conspiracy theory, as the 911blogger known as "Sitting-Bull" has noted: "Some "Debunkers" already claim that he was chosen because he was a "truther".
That´s totally bogus." Sitting-Bull adds that Griscom "did not play a
vocal or any role in the 9/11 truth movement prior to 2007/2008," and
that "Bentham surely did not find his rare blog entries on the issue for
selecting him." Sitting-Bull emphasizes that Bentham must have
researched "their database for valuable scientific referees in the field
of research with good experience," and that Griscom would have been an
obvious choice given his reputation.

The "debunkers" also conveniently forget to mention that there was also another reviewer who remained anonymous, as noted
by one of the authors, Gregg Roberts. Roberts states that the other
reviewer "provided a much less rigorous review than did Griscom," and
that this referee also approved of the paper "if the review points were
dealt with adequately.." Those "months of further experiments" really
paid off because Griscom states that he had "absolutely nothing to criticize in the final version of the Harrit et al. paper!" This statement resulted in Joseph Nobles´s proverbial failure at manifesting a salient retort:
"And yet Griscom says that he couldn’t find anything to criticize about
the ATM paper! 12 notes of suggestions he has that makes Harrit, et al.
sweat and strain to meet (according to Jones), but none of these are
criticisms?" The level of Nobles´s reading comprehension is embarrassing, but unfortunately it is typical for the so-called "debunking sites", such as his ae911truth.info. What Griscom actually said is that he "found absolutely nothing to criticize in the final version of the Harrit et al. paper!" You know, the final version they produced after they made the changes based on the review!

The journal editor-in-chief caved in to political pressure
and resigned after the paper had been published, without actually
criticizing the content of the paper. The "debunkers" began their smear-campaign
against the journal even before the paper got published, so the
resignation has been seen as an opportunity to slander the journal, the
paper and it´s authors. The campaign forced another editor to resign and effectively killed the journal for a whole year, but it started to recover after that. These "debunkers" have also attempted to ruin the reputation of the whole family of (over 150) Bentham Open
journals because one of those journals published a hoax-paper according
to them, and that is supposed to discredit by association the journal
that published Harrit´s paper. But the "debunkers" only discredit
themselves, because although one of those journals
tried to discover the identity of the hoaxers by sending them a letter
stating that it would publish the paper if they would just "fill and
sign the attached fee form," there never was any intention to publish.
Some "debunkers" still spread the false rumors about these journals
publishing hoax-papers and that Harrit´s paper is not reviewed. The
dullest specimens also resort to vile personal attacks, as is so
perfectly exemplified by Pat Curley from the site Screw Loose Change who calls Dr. Griscom a "sack of fecal matter" and a "Troofer moron." However, as one of Harrit´s co-authors so accurately noted,
all these diversionary claims and ad hominem arguments are "just a way
to avoid dealing with what the paper says." The formal peer-review by
Griscom and the other referee was indeed valid and unusually tough, but
it did not stop therer. Jones stated in the comments that "BYU scientists did a review of the
paper" that led to changes in the report. Jones previously revealed
in comments on another post that the paper was "peer-reviewed by the
Physics dept. chair at BYU...because two of the authors are from this
dept." Elsewhere he revealed
that he was told by the chairman that the paper "was sound scientific
research and that he was now persuaded that explosives/pyrotechnics were
involved in the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11."

Question:

Why won't Kevin Ryan allow ANY of his precious dust samples to be tested by an independent laboratory?

Scarcity of samples and the tests he would like to run on them, like his recent FTIR results below, may also be an issue. More on that in an upcoming blog post.

But his reasoning to not share samples is irrelevant, because of Mark Basile's, "Proposal for independent study of the WTC dust Using an independent lab that has no idea that the dust is from the WTC or from 9/11." Details at: http://markbasile.org

Question:

Why won't Niels Harrit, Steven Jones, or Kevin Ryan refute the recent
truth seeking professional scientific study of the WTC dust performed
by Dr. James Millette?

James Millette did NOT do DSC analyses at
all for his report MVA9119. What a shame, really...When Dr. Farrer
burned epoxy paint in the DSC, it gave a very broad thermal trace, NOT
at all like the spiked exothermic DSC peak in our Fig 19. This is one of
the many tests he did to check things. Also, we checked the electrical
resistivity of several paints – consistently orders of magnitude higher
than that of the red material. We reported the resistivity of the red
material in our paper, page 27 in the Journal. Millette did not report
any electrical resistivity measurements. This measurement is rather easy
to do so I was surprised when he failed to do this straightforward
test. There is a lot of red material of
various types in the WTC dust, so one must be careful to make sure it is
the same as what we studied, and not some other material.

Harrit et al. mention another version of the chips in the dust, in
very thin, stacked, multilayer structures, in addition to the chips
examined in the paper. According to Jones, later unpublished analysis
confirmed that these chips have the same red and gray layers as the
standard bi-layered chips, along with different layers. He states that
"thus we are confident this is the same material -- but in MULTI-LAYER
form and with another layer, light-gray as explained in our paper." When
a blogger discovered a patent in July 2012, described as looking "like the manual for what was found in the WTC dust", Dr. Steven Jones
stated that "It is difficult to see how a 'paint' applied to steel
could result in such multiple-layered chips as we observed in the WTC
dust. Have debunkers even attempted to account for the multiple-layered
chips which we reported finding in the WTC dust? - Any other study of
the red-gray chips which fails to replicate our finding of
multiple-layered red-gray chips is seen to be INCOMPLETE at best." And
having read Millette´s report, Jones reminds 'debunker' Oystein that ”Millette does not mention them.”

Kevin Ryan has also concluded that Millette´s supposed refutation of
their paper may have been invalid from the start, because Millette is
most likely not testing the same material:
"Steel primer paints must be resistant to fire and withstand
temperatures well over 700 C, so we know that the diversionary claims
about primer paint are not true...Millettte’s samples “ashed” at or
below 400 C and therefore are not only not red/gray chips (which ignite
at 430 C and form spheres identical to those from thermitic reactions)
but are also not primer paint from the WTC. But he pretty much admits
that."

Commenting on Millette's report, [which BTW has not been peer-reviewed and published] One of Harrit´s co-authors, Dr. Frank Legge. Dr. Legge, who holds a PhD in chemistry, has stated that:

...The existence of elemental aluminium in the red chips is proven by the formation of the microspheres in the DSC, largely iron. What else can start to rip the oxygen out of iron oxide at below 400 deg C, then have a runaway temperature increase at least to the melting point of iron? Those who dispute this on the grounds that oxygen was present, and that the energy came from the combustion of organic material, must provide an explanation for why such special conditions are required in a blast furnace to produce iron. The idea that you could heat a little kaolin and coke and iron oxide to a mere 400 deg C and see it suddenly run away and produce molten iron is clearly a fantasy. http://www.thepotteries.org/shelton/blast_furnace.htm

I LOVE IT!
But you still give 911 twoofer excuses!
What part of NO ALUMINUM = FAKE THERMITE don't you understand?
"The journal editor-in-chief caved in to political pressure and resigned after the paper had been published"
I hope you can offer some EVIDENCE to support this STRAWMAN claim!
Kevin Ryan put evidence of the greatest crime in the history of the world in the mail?
Have you EVER heard a "chain of custody".
Sounds like a Kevin Ryan inside job to me!
911 TRUTH﻿ = FAKE THERMITE

"'The journal editor-in-chief caved in to political pressure and resigned after the paper had been published'
I hope you can offer some EVIDENCE to support this STRAWMAN claim!"

Click the link to the words political pressure, that's the evidence. But Millette didn't get any kind of peer-review or publish in a journal, so why are we talking about this? As blog contributor Scootle Royale noted in his article, "Two criticisms of the Harrit et al paper that are no longer valid," "Their 'Peer-review!' and 'Chain of custody!' mantras function as sort-of
quasi-ad-hominems. Debunkers are more interested in discrediting the
research than they are in having a genuine scientific discussion about
it."

"What part of NO ALUMINUM = FAKE THERMITE don't you understand?"

And yet still it is apparent ctcole77 has not read my article on this subject.

Part IV: The Elemental Aluminum.
So, how does Dr. Millette justify the lack of replication? He
essentially states that further testing is unnecessary because there is
"no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in
the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not
thermite or nano-thermite." Millette claims that the plates of silicon
and aluminum inside the chips are kaolin, which is a clay material that
happens to be a common ingredient in paints. But as we have previously
noted, Millette is probably not studying the same material as Harrit et
al. - and in this case Millette may have found kaolin because he is
focusing on the paint chips also present in the dust, despite Kevin
Ryan´s specific warning (see part III). Kaolin plates may look very
similar to coated aluminum platelets, but Millette finds kaolin plates
as thin as 6 nm while Harrit et al. report consistent platelets
"approximately 40 nm thick." Millette and his sponsors should have known
that they could expect to find the aluminum in the correct chips hidden
inside a protective coating based on silicon. They have failed to read
the excellent references that Harrit et al. cite, including this one which explains that the coating is "essential to protect aluminum nanopowder.." and that it "leads to better dispersion...and more uniform mixing."
The protective layer not only promotes efficiency, it also prevents
air-oxidation and humidity from deactivating the elemental aluminum,
which explains how the chips could remain active for so many years.

Harrit et al. agree that their chips contain aluminum and silicon
together in the same space, but how do they determine whether or not the
two chemicals are separate or chemically bound together as kaolin? As
we note in Part II, when you compare the signals for Al/Si before and
after ignition, you see that the peaks no longer have the same ratio
after ignition and that the aluminum is relatively depleted, which is
not consistent with a compound. And the team discovered that MEK
paint-solvent induces swelling in their chips that segregates the
silicon from the aluminum, which proves that they are not chemically
bound together, so the plates in their chips are not kaolin. This is
confirmed with chemical analysis and clear visual representations, but
the "debunkers" ignore this important result. They claim that the main
chips studied (chips "a to d" depicted in fig.7) are LaClede primer-paint that contains kaolin, and that the MEK chip is another type of paint (Tnemec) that does not have kaolin. Adam Taylor notes in his March 2011 article that the source for this MEK hand-wave is Sunstealer´s
March 2011 post where he announces that the XEDS spectrum for the MEK
chip (fig.14) looks very similar to the spectrum for Tnemec
primer-paint. But as Taylor explains, the XEDS spectrum for the MEK chip
represents the unwashed and contaminated surface, while the spectra for
the other chips represent clean surfaces. The contaminants happen to
make the unwashed MEK chip look like Tnemec, but Sunstealer´s rationale
is essentially pretending that there is no contamination.
ScootleRoyale´s excellent March 2012 article
also demolishes Sunstealer´s premise for this theory, because the
unwashed surface of all the studied chips had a spectrum similar to the
unwashed MEK chip according to one of the authors of the study,
including the chips featured in the paper (in figure 7). ScootleRoyale
also demonstrates to Oystein how untenable the MEK hand-wave is by
noting the fact that the MEK solvent does not dissolve or soften the
chip, unlike confirmed Tnemec chips: "The reason Harrit et al. soaked a
chip in MEK was to compare the result to Tnemec primer!"

Talboo and Weathers also demonstrate in their May 2011 article that Sunstealer´s MEK Hand-wave is an obvious failure
because there is no elemental aluminum in Tnemec, only aluminum bound
to calcium. Tnemec also contains zinc, but the MEK chip only has Zn and
Ca as surface contaminants which disappear after the wash in the MEK.
Talboo and Weathers respond to Oystein´s objections to Taylor´s article,
including his claim that Harrit et al. simply could not register Zn and
Ca with their equipment settings for the recorded spectra after the MEK
soak. Unfortunately for Oystein, his fellow JREF´er has debunked his
claim and confirmed that Harrit´s equipment would have registered the Zn
and the Ca. Talboo and Weathers also note that Dr. Farrer debunks
Oystein´s claim that they mislabeled Zn as sodium(Na). According to
Farrer, the sodium "peak that is found in fig 18 was confirmed by the
absence of the Zn k-alpha peak at 8.637keV (and yes, the same exact spot
was analyzed at a beam energy of 20kV and the Zn k-alpha peak is still
not present)." Farrer goes on to say that "while it is true that the Na
k-alpha peak (1.04keV) overlaps the Zn L-alpha (1.012keV), it is pretty
simple to confirm which element is present."

Look, Oystein, why don't you put a sample of Tnemec primer in MEK and
soak it, and see whether it becomes limp (as I say) or remains very
hard under forceps? Do debunkers ever do experiments? I say, do the
experiment and let us know what you find! Experiments are much more
convincing in science than hand-waving arguments.

Denis Rancourt has suggested that the XEDS sample-holder provides the aluminum signal, but Harrit notes that their control experiments prove that "the electron beam couldn’t even penetrate the carbon
conductive tab used as substratum..." In other words, "the Al/Mg
scaffold was never hit in any of the spectral recordings published in
the article." Harrit also mentions that they have unpublished TEM
analysis where "the samples were mounted on a copper holder and these
measurements also confirm the presence of aluminum." According to Dr. Jones, their unpublished analysis via TEM and XRD
is consistent with their previous (MEK test) conclusion of ruling out
kaolin, but he notes that the new tests have not resulted in conclusive
identification of pure aluminum - According to Jones, the aluminum might
be in an amorphous form that is difficult to detect.

Basile plans
to introduce one new test method (ESCA small spot technique with argon
ion sputter) to directly establish the presence of unbound aluminum.
Basile also plans to confirm aluminum by having an independent
laboratory repeat the ignition tests, in air and inert atmosphere. He notes
in a December 2012 interview (at 37m.55s.) that the chips will most
likely also ignite in an inert atmosphere, and that even if they do not,
that this test will still reveal any elemental aluminum since it will
melt and leave a signature endothermic peak at a certain temperature.
ScootleRoyale notes in his March 2012 article that that two of Harrit´s
air-ignited samples have an endothermic peak around the 660 degree(C)
melting point of aluminum, which is another strong indication of elemental aluminum:

The fact that the chips actually work
when ignited is also a very strong indication of elemental aluminum,
according to one of Harrit´s co-authors, Dr. Frank Legge. Dr. Legge, who holds a PhD in chemistry, has stated that:

...The existence of elemental aluminium in the red chips is proven by
the formation of the microspheres in the DSC, largely iron. What else
can start to rip the oxygen out of iron oxide at below 400 deg C, then
have a runaway temperature increase at least to the melting point of
iron? Those who dispute this on the grounds that oxygen was present, and
that the energy came from the combustion of organic material, must
provide an explanation for why such special conditions are required in a
blast furnace to produce iron. The idea that you could heat a little
kaolin and coke and iron oxide to a mere 400 deg C and see it suddenly
run away and produce molten iron is clearly a fantasy. http://www.thepotteries.org/shelton/blast_furnace.htm

When confronted with hard evidence showing government complicity into
the september 11th attacks, debunkers and other such apologists will
forward a great variety of a-priori arguments that release them from the
need to confront this wide ranging body of proof (which would result in
uncomfortable cognitive dissonance). The vast majority of these
statements generally turn out to have little merit, showing themselves
as nothing more than a petty cop-out for a moral coward. Some of the
more atypical claims will be featured in this post, and discussed at
length to judge their value. Any postings following this one will deal
with the remaining pseudo-skeptic arguments, which have more or less
been resolved years ago by other members of the truth movement.

The purpose of this series is simply to provide the truth seeker with
ready-made ammunition which he can use to fend off the lame a-priori
dismissals, and force the opposition to actually look at the evidence
that has been amassed. This includes the multiple warning of an
impending terrorist attack (which were ignored by bush), the war games
and live hijacking drill that obstructed the air defense, and the
financial arrangement that took advantage of the chaos, especially the
black eagle trust. Anyone who looks at the events of 911 with a half
open mind will see that there are terrible flaws with the official
story, and a huge number of anomalys that hint not of some garden
variety terrorist plot, but a state crime against democracy. First up
are two denials that are frequently bandied about on wikipedia.

Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources.

Just because someone says a claim is extraordinary does not make it so.
People often label any theories that are contrary to the governments
version of events as 'extraordinary', thus implying that the government
and its associated media have a monopoly on what is considered
reasonable. But claims can only be considered extraordinary if they have
no historical precedent. Therefore, all that is needed to show that a
theory can be confirmed (with ordinary scientific processes) is to point
out a similar case that has happened before. For this, a simple look at
the geopolitical affairs of the 1930s will suffice. In a period of
just 8 years, the world saw 4 separate false flag attacks (!) used by
authoritarian regimes to push their agendas: This includes the
manchurian incident, the clash of wal wal, operation gleiwitz, and the
shelling of mainila. These incidents are not at all disputed by
historians (at least, not by historians who live outside of
the implicated nations, where the temptation to white wash history is
present): No one has difficulty believing that such crimes could be
perpetrated by a mere historical artifact, which they have no
personal connection to. The same is not true when ones own nation has
been accused of authoring a terrorist attack in the present!

Claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the
relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream
assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and
biographies of living people. This is especially true when proponents
say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

This opinion piece feeds into the larger mind set that establishment
types have, with their belief that history is something which cannot be
shaped by conscious intent, via the persistent influence of the fog of
war or other such mystical phenomenon. They have a characteristic
ambivalence towards the notion that much of modern history has been the
result of elaborate policys put into place by powerful oligarchs,
something which would upset their fragile egos (and the illusions they
have about democracy). These academics condemn all such theorys and
hypothesis' with the pejorative label of conspiracism. Bruce
cumings elaborates on this belief system: "But if conspiracies exist,
they rarely move history; they make a difference at the margins from
time to time, but with the unforeseen consequences of a logic outside
the control of their authors: and this is what is wrong with 'conspiracy
theory.' History is moved by the broad forces and large structures of
human collectivities."

But power corrupts, and all power corrupts absolutely. The two go
inextricably hand in hand, and we may ask these men what barriers can
stop a dominant entity from utilising secrecy to implement its
policys: Answering this question without contradicting historical
records would be quite a feat. That is because any country which becomes
a superpower in its specific ficton will eventually wind up playing
host to a cast of authoritarian misfits, who use their influence and
wealth take control of the national agenda. Humans are social creatures,
and the desire to conform to the default viewpoint is a built in
feature. When information is distributed to a population in a top down
fashion, this makes the entire nation vulnerable to being misled by its
leadership caste (whose interests are divorced from those of the common
people). Coming out in detraction of the reigning cultures golden cow,
therefore, is a difficult and unrewarding task, one which got only more
complicated with the advent of nationalism during the industrial era.
Countless times have we seen men oppose various ideologies and
religions, only to be greeted with viscous persecution by the
establishment, whose tenets were later overturned and falsified decades
or centurys after the fact.

Those who claim the WTCs were destroyed via a thermite
demolition have ignored the fact that this substance can't inflict real
damage to structural members.
Assertions like these seek to raise doubt about the validity of a
collapse initiated by thermitic materials (which work much more silently
than explosives) by claiming their ability to degrade steel is very
limited. The fact that this notion is false in its entirety didn't seem
to stop the 911 debunkers, who seized upon it with a vigour that is
rarely seen outside of a funny farm. But explosive experts have known
for decades that the thermite reaction IS capable of melting
through steel members, especially when its spray of molten iron is
harnessed via a directed funnel. The world was reintroduced to this
reality in late 2010, when jonathan cole (a graduate from the university
of connecticut) released a video documenting his experiments with
thermite.

﻿

﻿

﻿

Cole, with a background in civil engineering, had confirmed the nature
of the work being carried out at the combustion institute since the
1960s. By using something he called 'a thermitic box cutter', cole was
able to slice through a steel I-beam with only 2 lbs of thermite. The
beam in question appeared to be a W 6 x 16, with a known weight of 16
pounds per linear foot. His results are consistent with the estimates
made by NIST, who asserted that 'approximately 0.13 lb of thermite would
be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel.' So with a large box
column weighing approximately 1500 pounds per linear foot, the amount of
thermite required to make the cut may be around 187 lbs. Note, this is
surprisingly close to the 153 lbs of tamped TNT needed to sever a large
box column.

Why would they use thermite which cuts steel without announcing it, then switch to explosives? To tip people off?
Because the WTCs were going to demolished in front of a live television
audience (which entailed huge risks for the perpetrators), their
collapse would need to be brought about in a highly unconventional
manner, so as to perpetuate the notion that impact + fires were
responsible. This entailed removing most of the typical giveaways to a
controlled demolition, such as the obvious, sequential explosions,
collapse initiated from the bottom, a small rubble footprint, etc. This
arrangement would have also had to proceed in total secrecy, with the
explosive and pyrotechnic devices installed in a manner that
would protect them from aircraft debris and fires (no small feat even
for members of the military industrial complex!). Given these
requirements, the best way to destroy the twin towers was to use a two
stage demolition process.

The first stage would involve silently cutting all (or nearly all) of
the 16 large and 31 small core columns on the floors impacted by the
planes. This is a task to which thermitic box cutters are well suited
towards. Arranged in banks of perhaps 10-12 per corner (and 47 per
floor) of the building, they could be set off in a precision sequence
via radio repeaters safely installed into reinforced crevices. And
though thermite burns with a ferocious intensity that is capable of
melting any thickness of steel, the noise they emit is
entirely insignificant, at least compared to the 18.5 lbs of RDX -part
of a 53 lbs shaped charge- that would be needed to sever a large core
column. Ignited more than 900 feet above street level, there would have
been little sign of the box cutters deadly presence, aside from the pool
of molten steel flowing away from WTC 2 before its collapse (which may
have been the result of a premature ignition from a thermite bank). With
the core columns cut on multiple levels, the impact floors were
suddenly robbed of their structural integrity, and would effectively
cave in on themselves, setting the upper section of the towers into
motion against everything beneath it.

Imagine a dump truck colliding with a sand

berm at 100 kmh, multiplied by 5 orders

of magnitude, and you will begin to have an

idea of how incredibly violent this event was.

﻿

﻿

The second stage would ensue shortly after the first, taking advantage
of a collapse that converted a tremendous amount of gravitational energy
into kinetic energy, resulting in an extremely destructive
interaction that pulverised concrete and crumpled steel members. Left to
its own devices, however, this piledriver effect would (probably) not
be able to produce a global collapse: Everything above the 92nd floor of
WTC 1 -and the 77th floor of WTC 2- would cease to exist, and many,
many floors beneath them would be gutted by falling debris. But the
lower foundations would remain fully intact, as would the core and
perimeter columns all the way up to the impact site. The buildings would
be preserved by immense networks of interconnected steel beams and
columns. Thus, in order to guarantee a total collapse, these resistance
points needed to be broken with explosive charges. Under the cover
provided by the noise and dust of the gravity collapse, the second stage
of demolition could proceed unnoticed to anyone more than a block away
from the site. With just a handful of explosive charges placed on all
the floors beneath the impact site (probably hidden inside elevator
shafts), the twin towers last structural redoubts would be methodically
smashed from the top down.

How would they be able to plant enough thermite to perfectly raze these three mammoth buildings, without anyone taking notice beforehand?
The best way to proceed with such an operation is to conceal all
suspicious equipment inside ordinary tool boxes, and to only bring them
out when working in confined spaces (or in areas that have been closed
off by security, to enable the crew to work in privacy). A single
explosive charge should be attached to each column juncture, then
covered beneath a solid protective casing. Assuming that this mount
could be emplaced with just 2 man hours of labour, then rigging the four
column junctures that typically reside on each floor would take a
minimum of 8 man hours. If this was done all the way from the impact
floors to street level, then that amounts to 368 charges for WTC 1 and
308 charges for WTC 2 (and 1352 man hours to install them in both
towers). Therefore, even with a quadrupling of the required man
hours -which is reasonable, given that most of a demolition crews time
is spent with the actual wiring- this suggests that only 5400 man hours
total are required to prepare the twin towers for destruction!
Theoretically, eight individuals working 40 hour weeks could have the
job completed in just over four months.

If the WTCs really were destroyed by a controlled demolition,
most of the worlds architects and engineers would have come forward and
raised hell with the authoritys!

This is obviously not the case. An in-depth examination of
the scientific literature regarding the twin towers collapses reveals
that virtually none of them are based on a close observation of the
visual archives. They are abstract mathematical models which use random
assumptions to come to conclusions about factor x or y. Such
insular processes are effectively divorced from reality, and tell a
truth seeker very little about what happened to these 110 story
structures: Someone who does not understand the unique features of this
collapse (or posses an affinity for regression analysis) will have NO
ABILITY to determine whether or not CD played a role. Academic
institutes of all shapes and sizes, ranging from NIST to AE911Truth,
have been guilty of a systemic failure to observe the actual behaviour
of the twin towers (and building 7) prior to and during their collapse.
They perpetuate a false dichotomy of progressive collapse vs controlled
demolition, failing to come to terms with the peripheral issues that
could falsify their case.

They proceed with an obvious confirmation bias in mind, neglecting to
consider that the truth may lie somewhere in between
their pre-determined conclusions. AE911Truth is responsible for
disseminating the false notion that steel framed buildings cannot
experience a global collapse without the aid of explosives. NIST is
responsible for grossly distorting the mechanical forces acting on the
WTCs, and for failing to document the material flow that defined each
destruction event. The basic standards of the scientific method have
been discarded in favour of abstract models and poor observations, which
in turn were regurgitated to the public in the form of sound bytes via
the mass media. If there was ever a time when the 'experts' should have
stepped in to straighten things out, this was it. Sadly, that is not
what actually happened. On both sides, negligence fed by false
confidence has snowballed into something that is now labelled as
'professional dialogue regarding the WTCs collapse', which has now been
framed into an issue concerning only whether explosives were present or
not!

If the attacks truly were orchestrated by the
government, someone would have talked! Even if all of the conspirators
had kept silent, there must have been dozens of people on the sidelines
who knew, and they couldn't ALL have been assassinated!

That is correct. If anything, there may have been well in excess of a
hundred people who knew sensitive details about the September
11th attacks, weeks or months before they actually took place. At a
lower level, such as the feds 2000-2001 monitoring of terrorist
activity, some CIA and FBI agents actually did catch wind of the plot,
and tried to warn their superiors. The story of susan lindauer is one
example among many. Debunkers may argue that this is only a niche
example which doesn't invalidate their wider point. Again, they are
correct. The evidence pointing towards MIHOP is generally more
circumstantial than that which exists for LIHOP. No one has come
forward to release information that directly expresses truly
incriminating activitys in the months proceeding the 911 attacks (I.E,
no rigging of the WTCs with bombs, no modifications of jumbo jets for
remote control, etc). That is not entirely surprising. New
counter-intelligence techniques devised in the 1960s have given the CIA
and other agencys a strong ability to suppress whistle blowers,
via trauma based operant conditioning. As soon as a potential leaker is
identified, they will be subjected to extensive background checks, and
placed under very intrusive surveillance in order to gain personal
information from them. Many technologys are available to spying agencys
nowadays, including laser microphones, phone tapping, computer
bugging, etc.

All sources of communication are surveyed constantly by the highest
technology available and a great deal of the results are recorded,
auto-transcribed and processed by computer to show statistical
associations (some of which goes to a live ear if close spying is
underway). Once enough information has been assembled to create a
'criminal profile', the director in charge will make a decision as to
the best approach needed to gain the whistle blowers compliance.
This sometimes involves black-mail and bribery. More often, however, a
campaign of terror is waged against the individual, where they are
subjected to constant and unrelenting harassment, raising their stress
level to an intolerable level that not only destroys their sense of
security, but interferes with normal sleep and work related activities.
Through weeks of gang stalking, the whistle blowers daily routine will
be irreparably damaged, and their sanity will be stretched to the
breaking point. Sometimes, the aim of this harassment campaign is to get
the individual to release their information in a partial or disorderly
manner, where it can be picked apart and discredited by cointelpro
assets. Mostly, however, they are given a chance to end the torment by
accepting a list of conditions which they must abide by, on the threat
of instantaneous retaliation (in proportion to the severity of their
infraction) if they do not.

How is it that a government which couldn't even plant WMDs in
iraq could stage something as massively complex as a false flag attack
on the WTCs and pentagon?

Determining the 'competence' of an organisation is easy. Simply look at
the deeds the US has carried out in the last decade. Notice the
difference between what they say, and what they actually do. When an
institute persists in taking a course of action which does not fulfil
its ostensible goals, we might reasonably posit that they show signs of
incompetence, and an inability to self evaluate. However, when they do
not stop pursuing that agenda even at massive losses to themselves, the
question of incompetence is brushed aside by concerns about their state
of mind. One possible answer is raised by albert einstein: "Insanity is
doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different
results." The other answer, however, is more sinister. As said by stefan
molyneux: "If an organization seems to be continually failing to
achieve its stated mission – but refuses to alter its actions – then
clearly it is simply achieving another, unstated mission." With this one
single insight, all of the odditys associated with the global war on
terror (as well as the war on drugs, poverty, etc) can be reconciled.
For every official proclamation a government agency may make regarding
some ambitious new campaign, there will almost invariably be an
unofficial motive that is not being disclosed to the public.

When taking into account all of its secret sponsors and policy
decisions, the bush administration is seen for what it really is: A
neoconservative platform that was successfully able to institute most of
the goals outlined in the project for a new american century. Even
so, the tendency to use mission statements to conceal more
unwholesome goals is widely known among the worlds top intellectuals.
With that being the case, you have to ask what benefit the bush
administration would have gained from staging a false discovery of WMDs
in iraqi territory? Few people with an IQ above 100 would take this
development in stride. Indeed, some would see this news as a
shocking confirmation of americas (long suspected) corruptness. So,
would easing the consciences of the dumbed-down public alleviate the
consequences of alienating the politically awake? Unlikely. And again,
the purpose of the false WMD scare was not to provide an overriding
justification for an intervention into iraq, or any other country (thats
what they had 911 for): The point was only to get the neocons foot in
the door. Afterwards, a continual presence in iraqs vast oil fields
could be maintained through mission creep, and vigorous stigmatisation
of those officials who wanted to 'cut and run.'

Even the president himself was not above participating in this
transparent agenda, using his rank to pressure dissenters into
submission. In summary, the key to explaining the iraq episode is the
fact that people are much more willing to believe in an incompetent
government, rather than one which is deliberately malevolent. But once
you accept the premise that the bush administration is a highly
effective, morally corrupt association, and that their actual goals in
any endeavour are never what they publicly claim, it becomes clear that
'incompetence' is nothing more than a comforting charade which is used
to cloak evil policys in. The men in office are able to get a surprising
amount of mileage out of this little trick, since american citizens
have a very high tolerance for political failure, although not
with silly hot topic issues pertaining to sexual orientation, gender,
religion, or race. Incompetence also lends itself to perpetuating the
left-right slave paradigm, particularly when opposition partys gain
browny points by pointing out the obvious, and saying how much better
things would be if the current president was kicked out of office (to be
swiftly replaced by their own candidate, of course...).

TWA Flight 800 was a commercial 747 aircraft that exploded in midair and crashed into the Atlantic Ocean in 1996. Eyewitnesses reported seeing a missile, or some kind of streaking object, in the sky at the same time as the explosion. However, the FBI still insisted that the crash was initiated by a mechanical failure and prevented any eyewitness from testifying otherwise.

Many of the investigators from the original National Transportation Safety [NTSB] board investigation have now broken their silence; they are saying that they didn’t find any evidence in the wreckage to suggest that the explosive forces came from inside the center fuel tank.

All signs point to a government cover-up and we want answers.

That’s why family members of crash victims, former airline crash investigators, and concerned scientists have banded together and submitted a request that you reopen the case for investigation.

The original investigation into the crash of TWA Flight 800 was seriously undermined and led to a "probable cause" of the crash that is not supported by the forensic evidence.

Evidence was altered and tainted by FBI investigators (including Ricky Hahn) as well as by David Mayer of the NTSB. The CIA's Randy Tauss oversaw the production of a fraudulent animation to discredit eyewitnesses that members of his team knew were fraudulent. The NTSB's own expert aviation accident investigators, as well as other NTSB-approved parties to the investigation, were not able to properly carry out or complete their work.

We're asking for you help to make sure that the six former members of the official crash investigation who have blown the whistle to expose major malfeasance need your support. These investigators, who directly handled the forensic evidence, can also correct the record on what happened to the plane.

Those who engaged in tainting and altering evidence and those who engaged in perpetrating a fraud on the American people to cover up the actual cause of the crash should be identified and held accountable--no matter who they are or how high up in the government they may have been at the time.

Because so many people came, and are coming forward to blow the whistle on the original crash investigation, with your support, enough pressure can be brought to bear to reopen the TWA Flight 800 investigation.

When that happens, a line in the sand will finally have been drawn warning those in government who would corrupt investigations or carry out illegal activities that they will be held accountable--no matter how long it takes.